Uk8 Coplayer discussion

DeletedUser8815

Guest
I don't like these anti-coplaying comments. It's already been pointed out that coplaying, although counterintuitive as a concept, actually evens the playing field, the point being that everyone can get a co if they want whereas not everyone can be online the whole time. I understand that some people don't like coplaying, however that is your choice, it's allowed so people are going to do it so you're going to have to deal with it. Coplaying means playing the account is less time-consuming and is more active, you can't blame us for wanting that surely?

ah you misunderstand me slightly i think. Not suggesting for a second that you seek an illegal advantage. Of course it is perfectly legal, however it still gives you an advantage over single played accounts. I cannot spend all day on tw, but if i had coplayers i probably could. So why don't i get coplayers, simply cos i prefer to play my way by myself.

I do honestly believe that tw would outlaw coplayed accounts if they possibly could, however as there is no way to tell if an account is coplayed providing of course both players come from same area. Its a bit like rp scripts are not allowed but bookmarking is, doesn't make sense other than bookmarking is undetectable by tw so cannot be banned.

But you have to admit it, a coplayed account has an advantage, activity is increased and that is the main attribute of a successful account. I play maybe 5 hours a day, with a coplayer the account could be played 10 h ours a day. Surely you have to admit that would give a big advantage........

Can you offer any other sport or pastime whereas 2 or more players can play together as a team against one individual. Imagine a football team fielding 14 players? would never be allowed, it would not be fair.....and how could you ask federer to play against both murray and ivanisevic? what about a 4 x 400 metre relay team competing against 1 guy running all 4 legs? The list is endless. It most definitely gives you an advantage not an unfair one, but nonetheless an advantage. Those single players who compete well against you are something special, especially if they run a tribe too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
ah you misunderstand me slightly i think. Not suggesting for a second that you seek an illegal advantage. Of course it is perfectly legal, however it still gives you an advantage over single played accounts. I cannot spend all day on tw, but if i had coplayers i probably could. So why don't i get coplayers, simply cos i prefer to play my way by myself.

I do honestly believe that tw would outlaw coplayed accounts if they possibly could, however as there is no way to tell if an account is coplayed providing of course both players come from same area. Its a bit like rp scripts are not allowed but bookmarking is, doesn't make sense other than bookmarking is undetectable by tw so cannot be banned.

But you have to admit it, a coplayed account has an advantage, activity is increased and that is the main attribute of a successful account. I play maybe 5 hours a day, with a coplayer the account could be played 10 h ours a day. Surely you have to admit that would give a big advantage........

Can you offer any other sport or pastime whereas 2 or more players can play together as a team against one individual. Imagine a football team fielding 14 players? would never be allowed, it would not be fair.....and how could you ask federer to play against both murray and ivanisevic? what about a 4 x 400 metre relay team competing against 1 guy running all 4 legs? The list is endless. It most definitely gives you an advantage not an unfair one, but nonetheless an advantage. Those single players who compete well against you are something special, especially if they run a tribe too.
No you misunderstood my reply.

You complain about people coplaying. I just tried to show you how instead of giving those who coplay an unfair advantage, letting people coplay actually evens the playing field.

To quote myself,
"It's already been pointed out that coplaying, although counterintuitive as a concept, actually evens the playing field, the point being that everyone can get a co if they want whereas not everyone can be online the whole time."

You see if coplaying were not allowed, then people who could get on more would have a huge advantage over the people who can't be so active which can't be resolved. However, because coplaying is allowed, those who are less active can coplay and in that way resolve the difference in activity.

I don't mind if they make coplaying illegal, but because it isn't, I'm gonna exploit the opportunities it gives me where I want. I don't like people complaining about coplayed accounts because everyone if they want can coplay. I know that some people don't like it, I respect that, I used to not like it until I tried it out and it worked out very well and enabled me to play a second world at a high standard without having to worry about neglecting my first world or rl. However because coplaying is available to everyone, including yourself as you pointed out very well, don't complain about it. You made a choice of not wanting to coplay, very well you can do what you want, but do accept what comes along with that decision. I made my own choice, that of coplaying, respect my decision too.

And your sport analogies are completely irrelevant, as you seem to imply for example in your football one that only one team can have 14 players where as the second can't, and that is exactly where you are wrong. The point is everyone can coplay there is nothing stopping anyone from doing it, only their will. In a more realistic example if they allowed teams in football to have 14 players than all teams would field 14 players not just one obviously, any sensible manager would field as many players as possible in his team of course, your sport analogies are very much flawed.

Of course coplaying gives me an advantage, not only in game, also in real life (more spare time), however there is nothing I can do if you don't want to use that advantage, it's there for everyone I'm merely using what is an opportunity out there for all of us.
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
OK, my last post on this subject.

good players playing 5 hours a day are under pressure to get a co in order to compete with the coplayed accounts that inevitably dominate every world. Its a bit like an honest athlete is never gonna be able to compete against those taking steroids so is under pressure to take steroids too. Athletics have the right answer - ban all performance enhancing drugs and ban those that are proved to be taking them. Shame that tw cannot do the same.

So instead I have to outplay those that have co's and are online for 10 hours plus per day while still only managing 5 hours a day. So the choice for me is straightforward. either i accept that i could never compete against these co played accounts, i increase my activitiy to match (impossible, I have a life too) or i get a co myself, but I really prefer to play singles tw. It is however satisfying to me that I have attained rank 1 amongst all the single play accounts, just simply ignore coplayed accounts as playing on a different playing field.

You say you have proved yourself as a singles player in other worlds, i can't be bothered to check, so i will take your word for it and say that you are indeed top players for doing so.

As a final word, should Stockport County be allowed to field twice as many players in a game as other teams, they would soon be a more successful side that Manchester United who only play 11 a side, would this make stockport players better than Manchester players, I think not.

That is my opinion, it is final and you will not be able to change it. Therefore I will not respond with more of the same should you keep posting. Enjoy your 2 v 1 advantage and if it makes you feel that you are better than the rest then excuse me for disagreeing.
 

DeletedUser6695

Guest
Im going to make one point here cause it seems you dont get it.

You are active for say 6-7 hours a day whereas without a co im only active for about 2 because of school(this isnt my fault as I have to attend school) therefore if you were to ban co-players, players like yourself who seem to have quite a bit of spare time would benefit and be rank 1 as others cant be active enough to compete and therefore the argument works both ways and imo your reasons are quite invalid
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It seems like you really can't read my posts or understand very simple logic. Perhaps if I make it bold you might be able to understand it better. In short:

Everyone can coplay, not everyone can be online all day. Hence, coplaying evens the playing field.

If Stockport County were to field 22 players, it would mean that Manchester United could also field 22 players as the rules apply to everyone, just like coplaying is available to everyone. Therefore, Man UTD would be just as successful as they are now (provided they get another 11 quality players). Why on earth would Manchester UTD field 11 players when it would be within the rules to field 22?
 

DeletedUser2918

Guest
just to add my ten penneth (i love a good debate :lol:)

luca - your argument works from the premise that there are a lot of single player accounts that are active all day. Therefore you need a co to keep up with these accounts.

Can you point these accounts out to me please? I really dont think there's a lot of them (if any).

Because if there isnt any it kinda shoots that argument out of the water....
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
If Stockport County were to field 22 players, it would mean that Manchester United could also field 22 players as the rules apply to everyone, just like coplaying is available to everyone. Therefore, Man UTD would be just as successful as they are now (provided they get another 11 quality players). Why on earth would Manchester UTD field 11 players when it would be within the rules to field 22?

exactly my point, using the same analogy I am obliged to get a coplayer in order to compete with other coplayed accounts, then what? you get a third player to maintain your advantage, so then so do I, then you get a 4th.....;where does it all end? I know they call it tribal wars but the idea is that tribemembers should have an account each not all share the one account.

Every sport in every country has a restriction on the number of players in a team in order to keep it fair.....except it seems innogames, the reason innogames does not is simply because it would be unenforceable.

So because of that I refuse to compare myself with coplayed accounts. I mentally remove coplayed accounts from the ranking list and then calculate my rank amongst single played accounts.

I know i said no more but you just do not get it do you? name me one sport in any country in any part of the world where players/teams compete where the said teams have a differring number of players. They even have the same substitutes.

I know if I had 5 coplayers I would be miles ahead of you by now, but that would not be fair ....perhaps the solution is to limit each accounts online time, to say 5 hours per day, to be taken at any time, now that would level the playing field and that is precisely what tw are trying to do with the first no hauls world
 

DeletedUser6695

Guest
just to add my ten penneth (i love a good debate :lol:)

luca - your argument works from the premise that there are a lot of single player accounts that are active all day. Therefore you need a co to keep up with these accounts.

Can you point these accounts out to me please? I really dont think there's a lot of them (if any).

Because if there isnt any it kinda shoots that argument out of the water....


Abdo, LoB, Ruffus, Nauz(sometimes) there are more I just cant think :icon_confused:

also @ LoB upping the amount of co players isnt as efficient as you think. If you were to have 5 co players when would they play? People actually want to play and feel a part of the account not just log on for like 2 hours a day and farm. 5 co players take away from teh fun of the game as a result people get bored
 

DeletedUser

Guest
exactly my point, using the same analogy I am obliged to get a coplayer in order to compete with other coplayed accounts, then what? you get a third player to maintain your advantage, so then so do I, then you get a 4th.....;where does it all end? I know they call it tribal wars but the idea is that tribemembers should have an account each not all share the one account.

Every sport in every country has a restriction on the number of players in a team in order to keep it fair.....except it seems innogames, the reason innogames does not is simply because it would be unenforceable.

So because of that I refuse to compare myself with coplayed accounts. I mentally remove coplayed accounts from the ranking list and then calculate my rank amongst single played accounts.

I know i said no more but you just do not get it do you? name me one sport in any country in any part of the world where players/teams compete where the said teams have a differring number of players. They even have the same substitutes.

I know if I had 5 coplayers I would be miles ahead of you by now, but that would not be fair ....perhaps the solution is to limit each accounts online time, to say 5 hours per day, to be taken at any time, now that would level the playing field and that is precisely what tw are trying to do with the first no hauls world
It ends when you have a sufficient amount of hours covered, after all there is only a max of 24 hours a day. Although I wouldn't suggest more than 3, having too many cos doesn't maximize efficiency, a bit like the law of diminishing returns in economics.

There are lots of things innogames can't control unfortunately, doesn't mean you shouldn't take advantage of what is allowed, and doesn't mean you should complain about them either, it's something you have to accept if you're against coplaying when you start playing the game. Again your sport analogies are flawed because you can't compare them to tw as here coplaying as has been proved many times actually evens the playing field.

The Apoxx account at the start had 5 players on it, it wasn't making such a big gap as we are on rank 2, which is why I highly doubt that if you had 5 coplayers you would be miles ahead of us, let alone be higher than us points wise. Most players blame a lack in activity as the reason they aren't rank 1, however that is 99% of the time just a convenient excuse. A lack of skill compared to the very best is usually the answer. If you want a lecture on that discussion too, you'll find most of my points in my response on this thread.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
just to add my ten penneth (i love a good debate :lol:)

luca - your argument works from the premise that there are a lot of single player accounts that are active all day. Therefore you need a co to keep up with these accounts.

Can you point these accounts out to me please? I really dont think there's a lot of them (if any).

Because if there isn't any it kinda shoots that argument out of the water....
It doesn't need such a premise. I'm just saying that if someone wants to be on the same playing field activity-wise they can. They have no excuse because coplaying is allowed. Of course then there is the skill factor which people like to forget.

A good solution is the no hauls world. Would be cool to have it here too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Would like to just say, maybe I'm understanding some of the points wrong, but seems that some are getting confused on the idea of co-played accounts. I saw a few posts comparing it to sports, which can be done, but is being compared wrong. I think I saw one about a tennis match, where it was said that one player vs another, then a second (coplayer) comes on and it's 2 vs 1 which isn't the case with tribal wars. When you have a coplayer, only 1 person plays at a time. Just like with ANY sport, there are a team of substitutes, that RELIEVE the other play, not come in and play along side them at the same time.

If a game/sport can have the potential for long hours of play, as tw does, it wouldn't be as productive to do it all yourself, unless you can do it all yourself. Since TW is open 24 hours a day, it's only logical and ideal to have co-players (substitutes) to help with the burden of 24 hour gameplay. I personally don't really co-play, would rather do it myself, but having an account that has co-players or is active 24 hours a day isn't against any rules at all. As said before it would actually be ideal to find yourself a coplayer to relieve you of your off-time. It's only an issue as with any sport, illegal to have them playing at the same time, such as soccer, football, basketball, hockey, ect., it is a penalty and in TW's case bannable to have co-players(substitutes) on the field at the SAME TIME, not if it's just switching out/relieving.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Perhaps you should change the name to something more fitting, JP68, such as UK discussions :lol:
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
Would like to just say, maybe I'm understanding some of the points wrong, but seems that some are getting confused on the idea of co-played accounts. I saw a few posts comparing it to sports, which can be done, but is being compared wrong. I think I saw one about a tennis match, where it was said that one player vs another, then a second (coplayer) comes on and it's 2 vs 1 which isn't the case with tribal wars. When you have a coplayer, only 1 person plays at a time. Just like with ANY sport, there are a team of substitutes, that RELIEVE the other play, not come in and play along side them at the same time.


ok fair point, let me amend my analogy.

Federer is playing murray in a long and arduous match. The score is 2 sets all and 5 games all in the 5th, this being the wimbledon final. Both players are dead on their feet and desperately need sleep. Murray goes off and has a sleep and nadal takes his place.....what chance now does a knackered federer have against a new fresh player?

Yes, in tw it is allowed, but only because banning it would be impossible..........

to continue my analogy instead of nadal coming on to replace a knackered murray, it is instead murrays identical twin brother who also happens to be a good player. The authorities cannot tell that it is not the original murray playing but the new murray easily now beats federer........would this be fair? No of course not. but it happens all the time in tw and is one of the main reasons that more and more average 3/4 hours a day players are leaving the site in droves, because they simply cannot compete with 18 hours a day coplayed accounts, after all, activity is paramount in this game and there lies the crux of the problem.

Innogames have tried to address this a little by creating a no hauls world specifically designed for players who cannot play too much. But once that world moves into mid/late game such a quality will be lost.

The simple answer.......produce a world where you are limited to the amoount of time you each account can be online. say max 2 hours a day, the skill would be in utilising that 2 hours as best as you can, and negate the obvious advantages coplayed accounts have.
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
It doesn't need such a premise. I'm just saying that if someone wants to be on the same playing field activity-wise they can. They have no excuse because coplaying is allowed.

sure it is, but so too is barb munching, but that attracts lots of flames for those that practice it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You ban coplaying, mine as well ban account sitting. All I hear from you borg is "coplayers play way more" and while that may be true, why does that justify banning it. You seem to be very closed minded. It's impossible to have a level playing field when some SINGLE players can play way more than some like you said, playing 2 hours a day.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But you have to admit it, a coplayed account has an advantage, activity is increased and that is the main attribute of a successful account. I play maybe 5 hours a day, with a coplayer the account could be played 10 h ours a day. Surely you have to admit that would give a big advantage........



I don't believe you only play for 5 hours a day, would you be happy for the admin to post your log in's times to prove this??
 

DeletedUser

Guest
ok fair point, let me amend my analogy.

Federer is playing murray in a long and arduous match. The score is 2 sets all and 5 games all in the 5th, this being the wimbledon final. Both players are dead on their feet and desperately need sleep. Murray goes off and has a sleep and nadal takes his place.....what chance now does a knackered federer have against a new fresh player?

Yes, in tw it is allowed, but only because banning it would be impossible..........

to continue my analogy instead of nadal coming on to replace a knackered murray, it is instead murrays identical twin brother who also happens to be a good player. The authorities cannot tell that it is not the original murray playing but the new murray easily now beats federer........would this be fair? No of course not. but it happens all the time in tw and is one of the main reasons that more and more average 3/4 hours a day players are leaving the site in droves, because they simply cannot compete with 18 hours a day coplayed accounts, after all, activity is paramount in this game and there lies the crux of the problem.

Innogames have tried to address this a little by creating a no hauls world specifically designed for players who cannot play too much. But once that world moves into mid/late game such a quality will be lost.

The simple answer.......produce a world where you are limited to the amoount of time you each account can be online. say max 2 hours a day, the skill would be in utilising that 2 hours as best as you can, and negate the obvious advantages coplayed accounts have.


Well that's still a wrong comparison. A comparison that would be more similar to TW would be a Tennis match between, federer and murray, who both have an option for a reliever/substitute whenever they need it. Murray gets someone to relieve and substitute for him and federer doesn't. Well it's not murray's fault that federer decided not to utilize the option of a coplayer...and it's not Wimbleton or whoever is sponsoring the match's fault...
 

DeletedUser9360

Guest
Co-playing has its advantages and disadvantages just like single play. The co-players might not agree on building certain ways or prioritising troops/builds/attacks. Whereas single players make their own decisions and nobody will disagree with them.
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
Well that's still a wrong comparison. A comparison that would be more similar to TW would be a Tennis match between, federer and murray, who both have an option for a reliever/substitute whenever they need it. Murray gets someone to relieve and substitute for him and federer doesn't. Well it's not murray's fault that federer decided not to utilize the option of a coplayer...and it's not Wimbleton or whoever is sponsoring the match's fault...

OK, so why does no tennis tournament in the entire world allow players to have subsititutes? Simples, it would make the whole sport a mockery. I mean really can you imagine it? Murray losing 2 sets to love against federer then nadal coming on for murray and ivanisevic coming on for federer then murray who is now sleeping beats federer who is also sleeping 3 sets to 2. How ridiculous! but that is what tw allows and the simple reason it is allowed is because it is generally undetectable.

So it is up to the players to ensure fair play, but then there are inferior players who get a coplayer in order to gain a farming and defending advantage in order to compete against the best single players......so the best single players get fed up with it and either get a co or quit the game. Proof of that is seen in the dwindling numbers playing the game. Soon to get into the top 10 you will need 2 or 3 players playing the account.
 
Top